> I briefly considered this, but I think we should rather go for the > opposite: let the XSLT translator take files as input. If directory > input is desired, it can always be set on top of unxml.
That is probably a better solution, if the xslt translator presents a file as output, giving it a directory as input (when it doesn't explicitly require it) does seem a bit silly. > (BTW, the naming is rather confusing -- unxml actually turns the > underlying structure *into* XML... Maybe we should use more explicit > names instead: something like xml2dir and dir2xml perhaps.) Better named would be good, "unxmlfs" is a bit confusing unless you know what it is / is going to be. > > However, XSLT is commonly used to turn one XML document into > > another, so perhaps there should be an option to try and present it > > as a directory tree, > > Again, it seems saner to put another xmlfs on top if this is required. > Yes, I agree now. -- Michael Walker (http://www.barrucadu.co.uk) Arch Hurd Developer; GNU Webmaster; FSF member #8385 http://www.archhurd.org http://www.gnu.org http://www.fsf.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
